23 Feb 2010: Opinion

The U.S. Chamber: A Record of Obstruction on Climate Action

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been fighting climate-change legislation and is now opposing federal efforts to regulate CO2 emissions. Its actions stand in stark contrast to an earlier business group, which more than a century ago fought to create New York’s vast Adirondack Park.

by shaun goho

In 1883, New York faced an environmental crisis. Water levels were falling in the state’s rivers and canals, impeding travel and shipping. Scientists and editorial writers placed the blame on the logging and burning of the Adirondacks, which prevented the forests from exercising their usual moderating influence on stream flows. With the loss of the forests, it was feared, the steady release of water would be replaced by a cycle of floods and low water.

To make matters worse, these impacts were the result of logging only on the fringes of the Adirondack region. But in 1883, the Adirondack Railroad Company proposed to build a line through the heart of the forest. The inevitable expansion of logging into the interior would, in the words of a New York Tribune article, result in “disastrous climatic changes, ... wasting freshets and parching drou[ghts].”

U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Thomas J. Donohue has adopted a hard-line stance against action on climate change.

As the newspapers filled with editorials calling for the protection of the “North Woods,” an unlikely champion of environmental protection responded: the New York Chamber of Commerce. A chamber committee proposed that the state purchase up to 4 million acres and “keep it for all time as a great forest preserve.” This was the crucial first step toward the creation in 1892 of the Adirondack Park, which today encompasses 6 million acres and is the largest publicly protected area in the contiguous United States. Given the powerful railroad and timber interests arrayed on the other side, the birth of the park would not have been possible without the early advocacy of the chamber.

Contrast this history with the actions of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today. The chamber, by far the largest lobbying force on Capitol Hill — having spent more than $65 million in 2009 — is actively campaigning against meaningful climate change legislation. It is also taking a lead role in challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) attempts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. More fundamentally, it continues to cast doubt on climate change science and sow fears through exaggerated claims about the economic consequences of greenhouse gas regulation.

These influential business lobbies, acting 125 years apart, took two sharply different approaches to the most pressing environmental issues of the day. Their divergent paths cast the U.S. chamber in a sorry light, and ensure that it will one day be judged harshly by history.

One major difference between the two groups is that the New York chamber sought out — and followed — the advice of scientists. That era, too, had its deniers. One member of the State Assembly suggested that “the

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a long history of disputing the human impact on climate.

Hudson River is an arm of the sea, subject to tides, and there will be plenty of water upon which to float the commerce of the State if not a drop of water flows into it from the Adirondack region.” The chamber did not side with those views, but instead followed the advice of scientists like Charles Sprague Sargent, director of the Arnold Arboretum at Harvard. Sargent told the chamber that “no doubt could possibly exist as to the necessity of putting a stop to the work of destruction now going on in the Adirondacks.”

By contrast, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a long history of disputing the human impact on climate and of promoting the work of climate change deniers. In 2001, William Kovacs — then the Chamber’s Vice President of Environmental Policy — claimed in an appearance on CNNfn that “there’s no link between greenhouse gases and human activity.” In a 2008 memo to the Chamber’s Board of Directors, chamber President Thomas J. Donohue claimed that “scientific inquiry” into global warming “should continue... given the recent reports indicating a cooling trend.” The National Chamber Foundation, the chamber’s nonprofit affiliate, named books by climate change deniers among its top ten recommended books of 2008 and 2009.

Moving from words to actions, last spring the chamber formally challenged the findings underlying the EPA’s decision that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and welfare and should therefore be regulated. Kovacs claimed that the goal of this challenge was to create the “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” — a reference to the infamous prosecution of a Tennessee schoolteacher for his teaching of evolution in the 1920s. According to Kovacs, a public hearing on the endangerment finding “would be the science of climate change on trial.” This month, the chamber became one of more than a dozen groups, states, and corporations filing petitions to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

iStock

In the late 1800s, the New York Chamber of Commerce focused on the long-term economic impacts of Adirondack deforestation.

A second key difference between the two chambers is that the New York chamber took a broad and long view of its members’ economic interests. The timber and railroad industries stood to make large profits from the destruction of the Adirondack forest. Nevertheless, the New York chamber focused not on these lost short-term profits but on the potentially devastating long-term economic impacts of Adirondack deforestation for all of its members. Declining stream flows meant, Harper’s Weekly wrote, that “agriculture will suffer, manufactures will languish for want of power, and the great internal waterways of the continent will be rendered useless for commercial interchanges.”

Today, the U.S. chamber appears not to recognize the economic threat posed by climate change. Instead, the chamber’s leadership continues to trot out exaggerated and one-sided claims about how the regulation of greenhouse gases would eliminate jobs and “strangle the economy.” While some companies in the fossil fuel and power sectors will face reductions in profits under a cap-and-trade scheme, the long-term consequences of unchecked climate change will be harmful and expensive for everyone.

In fact, as many forward-looking companies recognize, cap-and-trade legislation will be good for business. Among other things, it will provide incentives for U.S. businesses to invest in the next generation of clean

In an unprecedented show of dissent, corporations have renounced their membership in the U.S. chamber.

energy technologies. This impetus is long overdue, as the country falls behind China and Europe in this area. In an unprecedented show of dissent, corporations such as Apple, Exelon, Johnson & Johnson, Nike, and Pacific Gas and Electric have either renounced their membership in the chamber or expressed dismay at the chamber’s position. Moreover, many local chambers — including the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce — have distanced themselves from the U.S. chamber on climate change.

In recent months, the chamber, apparently stung by the series of resignations and the withering criticism in the press, appears to have softened its tone. But underneath the new rhetoric there appears to be

More from Yale e360

A Journalist Reflects on the
Rising Heat in Climate DebateAlthough he writes one of the most popular blogs on the environment, Dot Earth author Andrew Revkin recognizes both the drawbacks and potential of the Web for exploring complex issues. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Revkin explains why the rhetoric surrounding climate change has gotten so hot.

Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing
the Public on Climate ChangeEven as the climate science becomes more definitive, polls show that public concern in the United States about global warming has been declining. What will it take to rally Americans behind the need to take strong action on cutting carbon emissions?

little, if any, change in substance. The chamber’s chief legal officer said the chamber was not challenging “scientific issues related to climate change.” Yet despite that statement, the chamber continues to do all it can to block any regulation of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, clearly demonstrating that it has still not learned the lessons that the New York chamber mastered more than 125 years ago. The U.S. chamber still stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the scientific consensus that climate change is real and it continues to brush aside the serious economic risks that climate change poses.

In the words of Peter Darbee, chairman and CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric, “an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”

As long as the chamber adopts the latter approach, it cannot be a legitimate participant in the public debate on cap-and-trade legislation.

COMMENTS

The assertions that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce "continues to cast doubt on climate change science", "is actively campaigning against meaningful climate change legislation" and "continues to do all it can to block any regulation of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions" are simply not true.

Thank you for posting Mr. Josten's letter. However, sorry to say but I hardly think it is affirmation of the Chamber's willingness to support climate legislation. Instead, the environment and greenhouse gases seem like an afterthought to further push an agenda not aligned with actual emission reduction. Offshore drilling, regardless of the environmental cautions taken, will not get us any closer to avoiding a climatic catastrophe. Nor at this rate will clean coal. Or protecting individual and consumer property rights.

Please do not say that you are supporting climate legislation when actually everything you support has nothing to do with addressing the problem.

Posted by
Katherine Dart
on 24 Feb 2010

I don't believe there's a scientific consensus on global warming and I doubt the actions of mankind will cause a climatic catastrophe. Prohibiting most of the Adirondacks from private enterprise allowed nature in that area to unfold as nature does in four season climate zones, with each season a regeneration with no input from mankind. It isn't exactly a pristine environment, you find discards, a couch, tires and construction materials, but nature will absorb those in it's own time in much the same manner it will cities and even those of us writing and reading this.

This is more a subject for historians and anthropologists than lawyers, all the world's lawyers combined with all the politicians cannot devise laws to hurry or slow nature. "Meaningful climate change" for Al Gore and his ilk has more to do with enriching themselves than saving planet earth. Time marches on, the last of the global warming hysterics will be dust long before man can predict the weather for the next day or week, to say nothing about decades or centuries from now.

Posted by
Vernon Clayson
on 24 Feb 2010

It is the brazen collective mendacity of the US Chamber of Commerce that is so discreditable. To claim to be no longer obstructing the control of greenhouse gasses, while in reality obviously doing just that, and doing so very publicly, smears US business as a whole with a taint that many firms do not deserve.

Given the groundswell of interest in a new global boycott of American goods (from electronics to foodstuffs) those firms locking the US CoC into its outdated obedience to the fossil fuel lobby need to review their strategy.

Posted by
Lewis Cleverdon
on 24 Feb 2010

Comments have been closed on this feature.

ABOUT THE AUTHORShaun Goho is a staff attorney and clinical instructor at the Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School, where he supervises students working on litigation and other projects addressing a variety of environmental issues, including climate change, renewable energy, and water pollution. His research interests include environmental history and administrative law.

Why Ocean Health Is Better And Worse Than You Think The good news is the world’s oceans have not experienced the extinctions that have occurred on land. But as ecologist Douglas McCauley explains in a Yale Environment 360 interview, marine life now face numerous threats even more serious than overfishing.READ MORE

MORE IN Opinion

Why U.S. East Coast Should Stay Off-Limits to Oil Drillingby carl safinaIt’s not just the potential for a catastrophic spill that makes President Obama’s proposal to open Atlantic Ocean waters to oil exploration such a bad idea. What’s worse is the cumulative impact on coastal ecosystems that an active oil industry would bring. READ MORE

A Conservationist Sees Signs of Hope for the World’s Rainforests by rhett butlerAfter decades of sobering news, a prominent conservationist says he is finally finding reason to be optimistic about the future of tropical forests. Consumer pressure on international corporations and new monitoring technology, he says, are helping turn the tide in efforts to save forests from Brazil to Indonesia.READ MORE

A Blueprint to End Paralysis Over Global Action on Climateby timothy e. wirth and thomas a. daschleThe international community should stop chasing the chimera of a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions. Instead, it should pursue an approach that encourages countries to engage in a “race to the top” in low-carbon energy solutions.READ MORE

A Year After Sandy, The Wrong Policy on Rebuilding the Coastby rob youngOne year after Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of the U.S. East Coast, the government is spending billions to replenish beaches that will only be swallowed again by rising seas and future storms. It’s time to develop coastal policies that take into account new climate realities.READ MORE

Why Pushing Alternate Fuels Makes for Bad Public Policyby john deciccoEvery U.S. president since Ronald Reagan has backed programs to develop alternative transportation fuels. But there are better ways to foster energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions than using subsidies and mandates to promote politically favored fuels.READ MORE

Should Wolves Stay Protected Under Endangered Species Act? by ted williamsThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has stirred controversy with its proposal to remove endangered species protection for wolves, noting the animals’ strong comeback in the northern Rockies and the Midwest. It’s the latest in the long, contentious saga of wolf recovery in the U.S. READ MORE

e360 MOBILE

e360 VIDEO

The Warriors of Qiugang, a Yale Environment 360 video, chronicles a Chinese village’s fight against a polluting chemical plant. It was nominated for a 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary Short.
Watch the video.